TRIGGERED CURRENT LIMITERS FOR

CLOSING BUS TIES, BYPASSING REACTORS

AND IMPROVING POWER QUALITY
John S. Schaffer
Senior Member, IEEE
General Manager System Protection Division, G&W Electric Company
Abstract - Current limiting fuses have been commonly applied
in protective systems for decades. They are effective for
controlling peak currents and for limiting fault energy. Triggered
Current Limiters (TCLs) are higher continuous current,
electronically controlled variants of the more conventional
technology. They are applied in the traditional current limiting
fuse roles, but in addition, adapt readily to unique applications
such as bypassing (shunting) current limiting reactors and closing
system ties between adjacent buses.
Bypassing reactors with TCLs can eliminate the continual
losses and regulating voltage drop associated with current limiting
reactors. This application provides full protection during a fault
and load continuity following a fault. By closing system ties
through a TCL the user may improve switching flexibility, better
balance transformer loads, and/or start large motors with less
system voltage sag. This paper investigates the practicality, the
benefits and the limitations of TCLs in these specialized
applications. It also introduces the concept of using TCLs for
power quality enhancements on critical circuits where a bus fault
may cripple an adjacent unfaulted bus.
Key Words Fuses, current limiting, Triggered Current Limiter,
TCL, Commutating Current Limiter, CCL, bus tie, reactor, power
quality, CLiP

, PAF

, shunting, power quality

I. INTRODUCTION
Triggered Current Limiters (TCLs), sometimes referred to as
Commutating Current Limiters (CCLs), fill a unique overcurrent
protection role in the high continuous current range (up to 5000A)
of medium voltage (138kV) equipment where traditional,
meltable-element current limiting fuses reach their practical limit and
generally do not exist. For example, at 15.5kV, the meltable element
fuses are generally available to 200A continuous (but are already in a
double-barrel design) with some manufacturers reaching up to 300A
continuous (in 4-barrel designs). Heat rejection becomes a major
consideration for these traditional fuses. Also, the very high let-thru
current may be in excess of the crests of many systems. In other
words, it may not limit current to a usable range if it limits peaks at all
for the corresponding available current. They essentially reach a
practical limit in their development and usage.
The traditional means for limiting faults for higher continuous
current systems has fallen into a number of approaches:
1. Addition of a current limiting reactor to reduce fault currents
within system capabilities,
2. Open a system tie to eliminate some of the sources of fault
current,
3. Upgrade the switchgear and other overdutied equipment to higher
ratings, beyond the fault spectrum.
A. TCL Characteristics
Coming into general use during the last 2 decades, the TCLs
offer a high continuous current alternative to these techniques by
providing effective fault current limitation without the significant
losses, and without equipment upgrade or replacement. TCL energy
rejection is minimal. For example, a 15.5kV, 3000A unit rejects only
140 watts per phase. Two such Triggered Current Limiter units are
the CLiP

Current Limiting Protector and the PAF

Power Assisted
Fuse. The CLiP utilizes electronic sensing and triggering while the
PAF uses an element sensor for initiation of triggering. We will focus
on units with electronic sensing in this paper. Interrupt ratings are
40kA rms, symmetrical for all ratings with most having an optional
120kA rms, symmetrical interrupt rating. These devices have
interrupted up to 311kA rms, symmetrical at 15.7kV. The formidable
current-limiting capability at extreme fault levels adds a whole realm
of possibilities to the overcurrent protection spectrum. They are often
applied, as would a traditional current limiting fuse, to limit current
magnitude and duration from a specific source and protect one feeder
or piece of equipment. Reactor bypass and tie closure applications
and more unique to the TCL devices due to their high continuous
current capability and low losses.
B. Operation
Before a discussion of their usage, a review of their operation is
in order. Conceptually, the TCL is a high-speed switch that carries the
continuous current. Upon sensing of a fault and response by the
electronic triggering logic, the switch is opened and the current is
forced into a current-limiting fuse which interrupts the circuit. See
Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Layout of a Triggered Current Limiter
These devices are characterized by a primary conduction path,
which electrically parallels a current limiting fuse of very high energy
absorption capability and low melting I
2
t. Approximately 0.1% of the
TRIGGERING
LOGIC
CURRENT-LIMITING
SHUNT FUSE ELEMENT
CUTTING (SWITCHING)
LOCATIONS ON MAIN
CONDUCTOR
CURRENT
TRANSFORMER
POWER SUPPLY
CONNECTION
ISOLATION
STAND-OFF
INSULATOR
REPLACEABLE
INTERRUPTER
TRANSFORMER
2
continuous current flows through the shunt fuse in its normal state due
to its resistance versus that of the primary TCL current path a
busbar. Upon incident of a fault meeting the triggering criteria, the
primary current path is opened - essentially a high-speed switching
operation. This causes commutation of the fault current into the shunt
current-limiting fuse and its rapid interruption. The interrupt process
of this shunt fuse is typical of the traditional current-limiting fuse with
1/4 cycle extinction of symmetrical and 1/2 cycle extinction of
asymmetrical faults. The point of actual current limitation is often
well in advance of the time of extinction. Note that this is not at the
natural current-zero point at which most circuit breakers, switches,
reclosers and expulsion-type fuses interrupt. The one exception to
this is the reactor bypass application where the TCL is clearing
against only partial system voltage across the reactor. In this case the
clearing time is typically only a few hundred microseconds after
occurrence of the peak let-through condition. The operating
technology of TCLs has also been discussed in much greater detail
in a number of the references [1][2].
C. Coordination
From a coordination standpoint, the TCLs are catastrophic
protection devices; whereby, the lower level fault currents are
cleared by other protection devices operating within their prescribed
ratings per their standard coordination curves. It is only when the
fault capabilities of these other devices are at the point of being
exceeded that the TCL triggering logic is typically set to take over
and clear the circuit. Another factor to consider is that the continuous
current is, for all practical purposes, completely independent of the
current-limiting performance of the device. Since these are
electronically sensed and triggered units, their operating criteria is
preset and not dependent on time versus current, temperature, element
size (or melting I
2
t) or preconditions. The units described are not
dependent on rate-of-rise of fault current, but instead, are responsive
to magnitude. Specifics of fault sensing and trigger level setting as
well as the methodology of trigger level selection are topics too
lengthy for proper coverage and will not be discussed in this paper.
They are reviewed at greater length in other literature [1][4][6].
D. Energy Limitation
From a fault damage perspective, the TCLs provide a tremendous
reduction from non-current-limiting devices such as a circuit breaker.
The let-through I
2
t is approximately proportional to the fault energy
and is a common measure of damage assessment. A 5-cycle
interruption of a 40kA rms, symmetrical single-phase fault by a circuit
breaker will result in a let-through I
2
t of 133x10
6
ampere-squared
seconds. A TCL will similarly result in a maximum let-through I
2
t of
600x10
3
ampere-squared seconds a reduction to 4.5% of the
breakers [1].
The Triggered Current Limiters are useful not only as stand-
alone, but also as complementary devices to a number of the
techniques commonly employed in the protection world.
II. REACTOR BYPASS
A. Reactor Limitations
The application of reactors to a power system is a common and
effective solution to short circuit control. Unfortunately, reactors
contribute two disturbing elements to a circuit. One, they consume
substantial energy [3][7]. Two, they upset the system's voltage
regulation. Consider the regulation difficulties that a reactor
introduces into a system. Under loaded conditions, regulating voltage
drops to below 95% are not uncommon. But this 5% voltage drop can
reduce the efficiency of equipment by nearly 10% and even more in
the case of lighting systems. This is in addition to the direct energy
loss of the reactor itself. It is a substantial reduction, which may not
be tolerable. It may only be annoying, as the flicker of lights. Or
worse, it may prevent startup of large motors etc.
B. A Synergistic Effect
Bypassing the Reactor with a Triggered Current Limiter can,
however, mitigate these difficulties. The key here is that this
combination maintains the benefits of the reactor without the
operational drawbacks. It eliminates the continual energy losses
related to the resistive portion of the reactors impedance, and it
eliminates the regulating voltage across the reactor since the
impedance of the TCL is measured in micro-ohms. Furthermore, the
reactor bypass scheme eliminates the one major drawback of utilizing
the fuse by itself, specifically, that once it has operated all
downstream equipment is de-energized. The reactor is commutated
into the circuit by the TCL, during the fault, to limit current within the
breakers interrupt capability. Once the breaker clears the fault;
however, continuity to the remainder of the system is maintained
through the reactor. This is crucial to industrial facilities with critical
processes and for utilities particularly on auxiliary systems in
generating facilities. While a more costly scheme than TCLs or
reactors alone, this technique can avoid the far greater costs associated
with a complete shutdown of a process or a critical operation. Reactor
bypass applications account for approximately 30% of the TCLs.
Figure 2: Example 1 and Plot 1 for Reactor Bypass
3
C. Reactor Bypass Example
Consider fig.2, a common application where the user has a circuit
breaker interrupt limitation of 20kA rms, symmetrical. The reactor is
sized to reduce the prospective fault current of 30kA down to 16kA.
The associated peak momentary current that the circuit breaker is
capable of will be approximately 2.7 times the rms, symmetrical value
of its interrupt rating. Upon occurrence of a fault, the TCL operates
and the fault current is switched from the main conduction path of the
TCL to the reactor. The reactor limits the fault magnitude to a
prospective of 16kA rms, symmetrical, within the equipment ratings
both in momentary and interrupt duty. The downstream equipment
then clears the lessened fault level. After the fault is cleared, the
reactor continues to conduct load current to the other loads on the
system, such that the critical processes of other circuits through the
reactor are not shut down or otherwise compromised. Power to other
critical loads is not lost as would happen with the TCL itself. The
bypass switches are then opened to isolate the TCL and change the
expended interrupter. Following replacement, the bypass switches are
closed to re-bypass the reactor. In the example one should note that
the peak let-through current to the system is a function of the reactor
impedance. The peak is typically not that of the TCL.
D. Application Considerations
Conditions that must be considered which are specific to applying
the TCL in parallel with a reactor are as follows:
1. The reactor circuit must be practical to begin with, in order to
be successful with the TCL.
2. Consideration must be given to single-phase and 2-phase faults.
3. Isolate the live system during fuse replacement.
4. Response of the system to reactor insertion must be reviewed.
CONDITION 1, if the circuit is not practical as a reactor circuit
alone, it will not be successful from a reactor bypass perspective. In
other words, the reactors must be of sufficient reactance value to limit
the fault currents within the equipment ratings. They must be of
sufficient fault and continuous current capability to perform their
function. In addition, the impedance must not be so high that the
voltage drop across the reactor inhibits proper system operation.
Note that there may be cases where the reactor impedance
required may be so high that its use is impractical. In these cases, the
TCL alone can usually perform the protection function, but without
the benefits of a reactor in parallel.
CONDITION 2, a major 3-phase fault will cause operation of all
three fault limiters and thereby insert all three reactor phases. The
potential user must assess the needs from the single and two-phase
fault perspective. In other words, can the system, when carrying full
load, operate without difficulty with the voltage imbalance imposed
by the insertion of only one or two reactors, while the remaining
reactors are bypassed by a TCL? More commonly, the system would
have difficulties if balance were not maintained between all three
phases. Refer to the one-line diagram in fig. 1. Note that there is an
isolation switch at each end of the TCL. If one of these is configured
with three-phase tripping and fault interrupt capability, it can be
tripped by the TCL controls to insert the remaining reactor(s). The
selection of the switch or breaker will not be discussed in detail here
but it should be noted that the duty required of this device is typically
commutating load (or limited overload) current at only the
corresponding regulating voltage imposed by that current through the
reactor. The fault will already have been cleared by either the TCL
(and current through that phase no longer exists) or by the more
immediate protection device near the fault. Some TCL users apply a
circuit breaker at one of the isolation switch locations. Others apply
lower rated devices. In order to support this function, the TCL has a
relay monitoring each individual phase of the unit. If any phase is
triggered, the relay will give a corresponding transfer. These relays
have two sets of dry form C (dpdt) contacts for customer control
interface. The response time of the relay can be as little as 2 cycles.
If the system does not have a difficulty with system imbalance, the
user has two choices. They can install the isolation switches, one
having at least loadbreak capability, and isolate the system without a
shutdown during the TCL interrupter replacement. Alternatively, they
can avoid the cost of the isolation switches by operating through the
reactors until the system can be conveniently de-energized. Users not
requiring full balance often prefer the cost savings of the latter case.
It should be noted that if all three phases of the TCL are not
triggered, that there is no need to replace the remaining untriggered
phases as is common with current limiting fuses. They are conducting
through a busbar system, not a fuse element. A fuse element alone
can be damaged or its characteristics altered by limited fault
conditions that do not melt it.
An alternative means to tripping an isolation switch should also be
noted in this paper for three-phase reactor insertion. This is the
concept of three-phase triggering of the TCL interrupters. For a single
or two-phase fault one can apply a set of pulse transformers
between phases. Thereby, for a fault with an associated operation of
any one phase, the same triggering pulse is also conducted through the
pulse transformers to the adjacent phases such that all three are
operated. This is not the preferred method for a number of reasons.
First, it is causing the non-faulted phases to attempt to be cleared by a
TCL at what may be a very modest current level. The shunt current
limiting fuse of the TCL may not melt for a low current or may take
an unacceptably long time. The shunt fuse may even attempt to clear
a current for which it is not designed, as these are typically back-up
type current limiting fuses with a minimum clear rating. This
contrasts with a known response of tripping an isolation switch.
Second, the isolation switches are generally part of the system
already. The cost of having one of the two isolation switches
configured with three phase trip and limited fault interrupt capability
is generally not a substantial cost adder when considering the overall
system. This additional cost is also mitigated by the fewer number of
interrupters used during the life of the system. One or two single or
two-phase faults may totally offset the cost of the preferred system of
operating the isolation switch.
CONDITION 3 is concerned with replacement of the triggered
interrupters. The concept here is generally that it is desirable to
replace the TCL interrupters without de-energizing the system and
shutting down critical processes. As noted in the previous section, the
system is generally configured with two isolation switches for that
purpose. Some characteristics of those switches are also discussed
there. Those performing the work to replace the interrupters should
isolate, ground and further protect the workers in full accordance with
applicable codes and practices.
CONDITION 4, a frequent question concerns the transient response
of the system during the insertion of a reactor. The exact response
falls into the realm of analysis for the systems engineer who has the
data and characteristics specific to that application. From an overall
perspective, however, one must consider that the system is already
undergoing a transient response due to the fault itself. Considering
the clearing characteristic as depicted in Fig. 2, plot 1, the reactor is
commutated into the circuit at a relatively early stage in the fault
process. The commutation at this stage is certainly of less
significance than at some later stage, at a higher current level. Over
the history of the use of TCLs in a reactor bypass application, no
disturbances specific to the insertion of a reactor have been noted.
4
III. BUS TIE CLOSURE
A. Why a Tie Closure
Often the power system engineer is facing a dilemma. It may be
a case of trying to start a large motor, or to better balance
transformer loads, or to share the output of a generator with an
adjacent bus. The overall system may possess sufficient capacity to
meet all of the needs if the tie(s) were closed. However, tie closure
results in fault currents from both buses and these may exceed the
fault ratings of the system. Extensive replacement of equipment
may be cost prohibitive. The traditional, meltable current limiting
fuse in this role is uncommon, primarily because of its low
continuous current capability. As a current limiting device capable
of very high continuous currents, the TCL excels in this role its
most common application. The tie can commonly be closed through
a TCL without replacement of equipment on either bus and without
exceeding equipment momentary or interrupt ratings [1][5].
Upon occurrence of a fault, the TCL severs the tie in a current
limiting fashion; whereby, that portion of fault current available
through it is interrupted. The magnitude is thus reduced. This
means that at some time (e.g. 2 to 5 cycles) after the TCLs
interruption, a downstream device will clear the residual fault
current, that current which was not available through the TCL.
Figure 3: Example 2 and Plot 2 for Bus Tie Application
B. Tie Closure Example
Consider the typical system in Fig. 3, Example 2. It portrays a
closed system tie. We also have a cogenerator on one side of the
tie, as is increasingly common. Assume that a fault occurs at the
location shown. We have 16kA rms, symmetrical available through
the Triggered Current Limiter for a total of 25kA. The equipment
limit is 20kA. Available currents on both sides of the tie are shown
in the plot as well as the total to the fault. Should a fault occur at
the location shown, the TCL will sense, trigger and interrupt the
available current through it. Following the TCL clearing, the buses
are separated and the downstream breaker can safely interrupt the
"residual fault," which is still supplied by the left source transformer.
It should be noted that the engineer may need to re-evaluate the
residual current contributions following the TCL clearing since both
transformers may be connected to the same source, of some finite
impedance, and the current may increase in the residual branch. While
load shedding may be necessary as a temporary measure to sustain the
left bus, critical processes or operations are commonly not dropped. It
is simply split into two systems on a temporary basis. The tie breaker
can be opened by the trip indicating relay of the TCL controls as
discussed in the Reactor Paralleling section. This would prevent a
possible single-phasing condition for those faults. Note the
disconnect switch to the right side of the TCL. Opening this and the
tie breaker will enable replacement of the expended Limiter without
de-energizing either bus.
C. Plotting the Fault Wave
Traditionally, when there are parallel sources to a fault and a
current limiting fuse protects one, an engineer will determine the
peak let-through from the fuse, via manufacturers published curves,
and add this to the peak asymmetrical crest from the other sources.
The fuse let-through from charts is a value unrelated to the angle of
fault initiation (level of asymmetry). It is a maximum value, which
may not in itself be totally accurate for that specific condition, and
does not relate to the timing of the fault wave. While this method
can be applied with TCL devices with conservative results, use of
the computer as a tool presents a clearer picture of what is
happening in the proper time perspective. Since the TCL is a
precision triggered device, the computer can project the let-through
for any specific fault magnitude, system X/R and angle of initiation
with good accuracy. This can be superimposed with other fault
current waves that are not incident through the TCL, to give a more
exacting profile, as in the associated plot. This is presently
performed for virtually all fault situations for any user. It permits
the user to visualize what is occurring without much guesswork.
Current values in the associated plot are in instantaneous terms.
This fault is depicted under fully asymmetrical conditions for a
circuit X/R of 20 (a midrange value) which will yield asymmetrical
crests of about 2.6 times the rms, symmetrical value. The upper
curve is the total prospective fault current. The shaded area depicts
the TCLs current profile. The clearing portion of the TCL plot, as
generated by the computer, is based upon the specifics of the fault
conditions combined with fuse operational characteristics. If we
add the instantaneous current of this shaded area to the "residual
current" from the faulted side of the tie (which does not flow
through the TCL), we can project the profile of the instantaneous
currents to the fault, the heavy line. Note that the system peak does
not occur at the same time as peak fuse let-thru in this example.
Also, it is not equivalent to the peak let-thru of the TCL added to the
crest of the "residual current" wave. In some other cases the peak
let-thru condition will occur at the peak let-thru point of the TCL.
Preconditions and accuracy prevent these plots with traditional
meltable-element fuses. With the aid of a computer, however, these
plots can be readily generated for virtually all TCL applications.
5
D. Application Considerations
Conditions specific to the bus tie closure application that should
be considered are as follows:
1. Rating of the TCL,
2. Single-phase fault response,
3. System response after TCL interrupt,
CONDITION 1, when selecting the TCL for a tie position, its
interrupt rating does not necessarily need to exceed the total
available fault current of the system. Only a portion of the total
available fault current will be available through the TCL. Often a
lesser rating, in excess of any foreseeable duty in the tie, will
suffice.
CONDITION 2 concerns the system response to a single-phase
or two-phase fault. Unlike the tripping of a circuit breaker that will
open all three phases and not leave a potential single-phasing
condition, interruption of a TCL, like a fuse, may be a single-phase
operation. Only the phase(s) reaching the trigger level will trigger
and interrupt. After the downstream breaker clears the residual
current, however, remaining untriggered phases of the TCL will
continue to conduct and may result in an unacceptable imbalance in
phase currents through the tie. Standard voltage sensing relay
techniques may not readily detect the difficulty since sources
reestablish full voltage at both ends of the triggered TCL after the
fault is cleared.
The TCL provides the relaying means in the user interface of its
control system for this purpose. As mentioned previously, it has a
relay monitoring each individual phase of the unit. If any phase is
triggered, the corresponding relay will transfer. These relays have
two sets of dry form C (dpdt) contacts for customer use. The
response time of the relay can be as little as 2 cycles. The user
generally configures these contacts such that any TCL operation will
cause the tie breaker to trip and thus avoid a single-phasing condition.
CONDITION 3, as mentioned prior, the current in the residual
current branch may change as the TCL interrupts. The available
fault currents may come from a variety of sources including
transformers, cogenerators, motor backfeed etc. The case that may
require an additional review concerns those sources that may have
an alternate path or means of supplying fault current after the TCL
has operated. Consider the two transformers in the prior example
(shown as impedances Z2 and Z3 in fig. 4). If they were in-turn
connected to the same source (via impedance Z1), the associated
fault current would split between Z2 and Z3 based on their values.
However, if either Z2 or Z3
becomes infinite (due to TCL
interruption of that branch), the
current in the remaining
transformer will increase.
Therefore, the residual current
also increases and the switchgear
must also be able to interrupt this
additional contribution.
Figure 4. Source Divider
IV. POWER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
A. The Problem
Consider the system depicted in Fig. 5. It has two facilities (or
buses) supplied from the same source. Each of the facilities may
contain motors, computers, lighting systems or other critical loads.
If a fault occurs as shown, however, not only will the faulted facility
be affected, but also the unfaulted. Typical clearing times for circuit
breakers are from 3 to 5 cycles. This contrasts with lighting systems
that may drop out and require a time-consuming restart with as little
as cycle outage time. Computers may be protected by UPS
systems, but UPS systems are often not as commonly employed on
machine tools or other manufacturing equipment. Motors may fall
out of synchronism and their starters drop out by the three cycle
point. This is particularly critical in process industries where a
momentary power disturbance can result in a costly shutdown.
Figure 6: System Voltage During Fault
B. Limiting Voltage Depression
In fig.6 the system voltage is depicted for fault conditions with
and without a TCL. As can readily be noted for the upper plot, the
system voltage will be depressed during the fault period, which may
remain until the protective device clears the circuit. Explicit
percentages of depressed voltage versus operating voltage can not
be given here as they are specific to the system characteristics, fault
location and to the fault impedance. It can be noted in the lower
plot, however, that the TCL limits the time to a very short period.
Even on an asymmetrical fault, where the fault current extinction
point will be maximized for the TCL at cycle, the point of shunt
fuse melt and current limitation is typically well in advance of
current extinction. The voltage recovery of the system coincides
with the melt and subsequent clearing time. Data for the plot has
APPROXI MATI ON OF SYSTEM VOLTAGE APPROXI MATI ON OF SYSTEM VOLTAGE
PROFI LE WI THOUT AND WI TH A PROFI LE WI THOUT AND WI TH A TCL TCL
Recovered
Voltage
Fault Initiation
WI TH A TCL TCL
Depressed Voltage
Fault Initiation
WI THOUT A TCL TCL Fault Current
Recovered Voltage
Z 1
Z 2 Z 3
EXAMPLE 3 - POWER QUALITY
FAULT
LOCATION
TCL
FACILITY A FACILITY B
A fault at Facility A
will cause a temporary
undervoltage situation
at Facility B that can
cause motor starters,
computers and lighting
systems to shut down.
The TCL can also be used
to bypass reactors in this
application and maintain
continuity to the other
equipment while limiting
the voltage drop at critical
equipment.
TCL
FIGURE 5 Power Quality Example
6
been taken from a typical TCL interruption trace. It can be seen that
the condition of depressed voltage is minimal with this device.
Dropout of equipment on the adjacent bus is not expected.
What are the affects of cogenerators, or other sources in regard
to supporting voltage on the unfaulted bus? This would need to be
considered on a case by case basis by the engineer. Such factors as
the specific bus and cable impedances, cogenerator size and fault
characteristic time constants are all relevant. The application of
reactors to limit fault current, and thus support voltage on the
adjacent bus is a possibility. Again, here it is the specifics of the
system versus the reactor impedance that will determine its
practicality. The concept is to provide continuity to the faulted bus
after fault clearing. While certain equipment will be dropped, those
that can ride through the depressed voltage state will not have been
cut off by the TCL, as without the reactor. The reactor bypass
concepts are reviewed earlier in this paper.
Applications of TCLs for power quality considerations are
newer than the above topics with ones specifically dating back five
years.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The Triggered Current Limiter can be an effective tool for high
continuous current systems. It can be applied in traditional roles as
one would apply a current limiting fuse or in unique roles. Among
these are reactor bypass, tie closure and power quality applications.
Each role has its own conditions for successful application.
Likewise, each has specific benefits.
The TCL is a predictable device where its performance in the
system can be modeled by computers prior to their application.
Analysis by computer can provide a more accurate insight into the
actual conditions than by traditional analysis techniques.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Schaffer, Commutating Current-Limiters an effective
alternative for high current protection, NETA World, vol. 18,
No.4, pp. 7-18, Winter 1996-97
[2] H. M. Pflanz, et al, The development of the Current Limiting
Protector (CLP), IEEE, T-PAS, pp.3609-3619, July 1981
[3] B. E. Wharton, Application of Triggered Fault Current
Limiters in the pulp and paper industry, TAPPI Journal, vol.
75, no. 5, pp. 93-100, May 1992
[4] P. Fransen, Case history: electronically controlled fault
current limiters, IEEE-IAS Transactions, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.
319-332, March/April 1997
[5] R. J. Lawrie, High capacity cable bus updates plants
primary power, EC&M, vol. 93, no. 13, pp. 24-28, December
1994
[6] G&W Publication, Guide to the methodology of trigger level
selection for the G&W CLiP

, November 14, 1994

[7] G&W Publication, Calculating reactor losses, GW5-CLiP-
14, December 1988
BIOGRAPHY
John S. Schaffer (S73-M82-SM90) received the BSEE and
BSME degrees from Marquette University in 1974 and 1976
respectively and the MBA degree from Lewis University in 1988.
An 18 year employee of G&W Electric company, he has held
the positions of Sr. Development Engineer, Manager of Switchgear
and Fuse Engineering, and Technical Director of Project Engineering.
He has been the General Manager of its System Protection Division
since 1992. Prior to joining G&W, he was affiliated with Allis-
Chalmers Corporation for 7 years, in the engineering of high voltage
circuit breakers, motors and DC traction systems.
Mr. Schaffer is a member of the IEEE High Voltage Fuse
Subcommittee where he is active in a number of working groups on
fuse standards. He is also a member of NEMAs High Voltage Fuse
Technical Committee and other organizations.
He has authored and co-authored several technical papers on
fusing and switchgear topics and has received a number of patents in
these areas. He is a registered professional engineer in the state of
Wisconsin.